AcoustIDs would be great, because there are none yet for these recordings. AcoustIDs are hard to get for uncommon releases, so if you are in the situation to have access to the audio adding this info I think is awesome.
3 Likes
Yes, I can generate and upload them. My query was more on how others value them though. There seems to be a lot of recordings that have way too many AcoustIDs attached. While I do not know the ins and outs of the process, I find it hard to believe that is possible.
When I grab the CD, I will also see what I can do on cover art.
1 Like
LOL! Done. That is somewhat confusing/misleading.
1 Like
“Complete” means different things to different people. A release like this is a great place to start.
AcoustIDs - ignore the mess that are on some popular tracks. This happens for many reasons. A new Release track like this can be made pure and it will help people.
DiscID - always good to add one of them.
Works - easy once you start on them. If you know the “Composer (music)” and “Lyricist (words)” this is interesting history. The Edit Relationships page also make this quick to do in bulk. If you know less specifics then “Writer” covers both roles.
Dates? Engineers? Singers \ instrument players on the tracks?
I find these small bands are good places to learn what all the links do. You upset less people as you add the data. And it will be appreciated by someone who gets one of those 100CDs from a friend of a friend’s collection one day in 20 years time.
5 Likes
Thank you for your opinion on this. AcoustIDs I can do easy enough. DiscID is already added. Works, well the cover art shows some and I will ask for more from the members.
This might get interesting. The people involved are not likely to be known as this was not a major label work. This is almost 30 years old though, so the fine details may not be there. This is a prime example on why I want to capture things. This is a catch up type edit, more modern ones can be proactive, and include the bits MB cannot handle… you know what I mean.
2 Likes
I want to focus more on a “complete” releases over volume. If I have the information, I would prefer to spend 1 hour getting fine details than spending that hour adding 10 of the nonsensical digital releases with 100 countries, excluding this and that. LOL! There is much more important info to all releases. I like to know who and where things were mastered, mixed, recorded, etc.
Thanks to all for providing input. I have been placing together a sort of procedure to adding releases. My intent is to show one who says, CD in hand, what they need to provide. I cannot force anyone to do so, but I would have loved to see such a thing when I started.
3 Likes
I edit some obscure punk bands some days that can involve a lot of research to find out who someone is. Plenty of links left in edit notes as to some obscure fan website I found that confirms some data. Or even the artist themselves. With research like that I find it quite satisfying when it then links up into other projects and bands via a shared Engineer, Guitar player or Studio.
Sometimes the links are valid enough to be added to the artist as a “discography” or “home page”. I’ll normally look for some way of getting them attached for the next researcher to use.
Totally with you on this one. It is why I find those “Most active editors in the past week” lists so comical. Some people are driven by bulk numbers. For me it is far more interesting to be lost in a weekend of reading up on an obscure artist to then share that knowledge.
There is no one procedure. Mine seems to evolve every six months. I go back to some of my old releases and laugh at what I missed out. We are always learning.
The details I add to a release now is stuff I didn’t even have a clue existed when I started editing. Yet I see the most basic of track list edits are just as valuable. This is what I mean by we all have our own styles and interests. I get shocked when I see some people say they “never bother with works” or don’t look at the engineers or ignore manufacturing details. I think they are missing out on so much.
2 Likes
This makes me feel like a bad editor. I see so many that have 100k+ edits and then there is me… not even close. Even the auto-editors are the same, crazy numbers.
I must admit… this is me in regard to the Works. The engineers and such however, that is great importance to me.
A few years back, I was in discussion with fmera and we disagreed on a lot. Since then, and digesting his comments, I see now that what I wanted to do does in fact have a place. The primary issue was who is the actual label. In short, MB wants the logo on the release (which cannot apply to digital releases), and I wanted the “people to contact”. I see now that my wants have a place in the relationships. I feel bad as I was a real PIA with him, but I learned a lot.
But this is exactly my point. You are after quality, not quantity. That is the best type of editor. I am much happier to do half a dozen well researched edits in an evening instead of 1000+ quick slap edits. ANYONE can punch a script to slap dates into recordings in bulk, but it takes skill to find real knowledge.
( Okay, I admit I did slam in a quick 1000 edits yesterday, but I can be a sad numbers geek and wanted to do this edit Edit #88888888 - MusicBrainz because I like the number 8… see also https://musicbrainz.org/edit/80888888 
)
I am not on this site for gaming scores and playing top ten charts. I am here to learn and share. We’ll let people rush away to 1,000,000 edits while we plod along with happy data.
Also notice some Auto-Editors can be low numbers. AEs are made for many bizarre and unconnected reasons. Rarely just because they have a “high score”. That would be a bad reason to make an AE.
Personally, I like making Works because I want to know who wrote my music. I like to know how it connects and who else covers it.
Meanwhile many people don’t care who their engineers are. They ignore those credits in the booklets. This is the point - we all add different types of data. This is why everyone has a different idea of what a “Complete” release is to THEM. There is no one answer to “complete”.
Let Charlie import a track list, someone else adds some art. That guy Always Comes Along To Correct the Capitals. Then I’ll come along and link the Works. You drive by and link up some Engineers. Between each of us we all add to the party. 
Life is always one long lesson…
1 Like
Here is another. I reply on the people here for guidance on these.
The credits on this release are a total mess.
EDIT: To be proactive, yes the CD states side A and B. There is no such thing. It is one CD.
1 Like
I would be amazed if anyone else here has a copy of this.
Yeah, there are also track numbers 1 to 18 and 1 to 16 - adds to the fun
I’d just treat that as one CD. Number 1 to 34. Clearly been converted from LP. I assume that is a compilation? Looks like it. One of those fun jobs of finding lots of small artists and probably adding lots of new ones.
I can find you plenty of those I have done…
Both of those sent me down dozens of rabbit holes tracking down bands, adding bands, locations, reading booklets, hunting little obscure sites. In some cases pulling in whole other discographies of bands I just added when I found them on a fan site in a corner of the web. I’m still combing out details on these. There is only so far the booklets can take you.
Obscure little low numbers of printed CDs. Far more fun than another big name CD printed in the millions of copies.
Well, sort of. They were released at the same time. The vinyl and the CD. There was no cassette. This release was acquired at a shop ~ 3rd and National in Milwaukee. I want to add more detail, but I do not want to enter the “political correctness” of my words.
Many times the artist was there. I believe I still have some signed by the artist, I will need to check.
1 Like
Music is created for many reasons. Adding facts in annotations is fine, but I keep my opinions out of those notes. I admit I have left the odd sarcastic comment \ political view in the edit notes, but they are hidden from public view. 
I’ve posted Signed by Artist covers. And expanded some notes in their annotations on their artist pages. Wikidata can often be pretty limited with less known artists. This is why I like finding links to other artists \ engineers \ studios in common.
So it is down to us to add those notes about what we know. Even if it is hard to prove that knowledge, we just leave what source notes we can.
I often write notes thinking “What will that guy who reads this in 20 years time think? Am I leaving them enough proof?”.
I also know if I only leave a little skeleton of details on an artist, it is enough for someone else to come along and add more flesh.
Ok. You are my “guy” for this initiative now. LOL! I wiil create a new thread as topics have become intermixed.
1 Like
My main thing in the ‘completion’ aspect is full, high-res scans. If other info is incomplete but there are good scans I consider it future-proof, so that’s the most time-intensive thing I do. But on the flip side I often skip other things that people do (e.g. works). As IvanDobsky says everyone finds their role!
Fair! I cry when people say they have a rare, potentially one-off release, and don’t upload scans 
(not saying anyone has to of course, just different strokes for different folks)
1 Like
LOL! It seems my role is to challenge the norm. This is ok though. I have real releases on my side.
for this release, I would actually enter the track numbers as printed, i.e. A1-A18, B1-B16. I think I mentioned how to do this on another one of your threads…
Agree, gotta have the scans. And the DiscIDs. Once a scan is there then someone else can read the details. I know I am overkill with my detail extraction at times - but it keeps me quiet. I like the interconnectedness of things.
Not doing scans I can understand. My scanner was offline for much of last year, which makes scanning tricky. And it is very time consuming work to get it right. And I would rather no scans than some randomly grabbed web image that has been half checked. Far too many releases are made up from scans from three different releases.
If you listen to some people around here, I am just “annoying” and “challenging”
There are all sorts in this place, and I know many times I can be far too direct in what I say. It leads to confusions. And I recognise that issue in many others. Sometimes the key is knowing when to walk away from a debate. If your point is correct, someone else will step in and reinforce it.
Guidelines can seem weird, but they have been created after many years of editing to try and make a common thread to what is a wide subject. There is logic in the madness, even if it may clash with our own way of doing things.
But if we didn’t poke at the guidelines, how else would they know the guidelines work so well?
1 Like